{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-07-25", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nJuly 25, 2007\nChair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.\nMembers Present:\nJohn Knox White\nMichael Krueger\nRobb Ratto\nRobert McFarland\nEric Schatmeier (arrived 7:40)\nSrikant Subramaniam (arrived 7:40)\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Program Specialist II\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nMay 23, 2007\nCommissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the May 23, 2007, meeting\nminutes. Commissioner Ratto seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nThere were none.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\na. Multimodal Circulation Plan\nThis subcommittee has not met.\nb. Pedestrian Plan\nc. TSM/TDM Plan\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nMadeline Murphy, 2518 Janis Circle, believed that many people do not want to use the\nparking garage near the theater, and would rather park in the outlying areas. She noted\nthat her neighborhood was consumed by many people parking there for the theater and\nthe nearby restaurants. She noted that many residents cannot park in front of their own\nTransportation Commission\nJuly 25, 2007\nPage 1 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-07-25", "page": 2, "text": "houses because of this situation, which she believed would get worse. She would like to\nsee discussions of permit parking to begin for this neighborhood.\nChair Knox White requested comment from staff regarding potential parking permits.\nStaff Khan advised that he had spoken with Development Services Department, and that\nthey were working on a parking study. They had been collecting data since last year, and\nwere preparing memos and data to be presented to the Transportation Commission in\nSeptember or October; following that, it would be presented to the Planning Board and\nCity Council. In terms of residential permit parking, staff has noted that such programs\nhave resulted in a substantial drain on resources in other jurisdictions. They had found\nthat the creation of residential permit parking required a funding source to establish\nenforcement, processing and collection of fees. The results from the parking study would\nbe available upon its completion.\nMatthew Anderson, 924 Grand Street, noted that everyone he had spoken to on Grand\nStreet was opposed to its redesignation as an island arterial. He believed the redesignation\nwould be detrimental to their neighborhood and to their efforts to deal with traffic and\nsafety issues on Grand Street and the surrounding areas. He added that he spoken to Mr.\nKhan about a recent incident where a blind man was struck by a vehicle turning off of\nGrand Street, which reignited people's interest in the safety issue.\nStaff Khan noted that the street functional classification system was part of the\nTransportation Master Plan policies that are moving forward at this time. The City has\nhired Dowling Associates as the consultant to work on the General Plan Amendment;\ntheir first task was to do the traffic model and develop the scenarios and analysis.\nFollowing that, they will go to the CEQA process that will require the City to produce a\nprogrammatic EIR, which will involve an ample public comment period. He noted that\nthe issue would come before the Transportation Commission several times.\n6.\nOLD BUSINESS\nThere were none.\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7A.\nCurrent Status of the Broadway/Jacksor project. Discussion.\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and noted that the Alameda County Transportation\nImprovement Authority (ACTIA) and the project consultant (Kimley-Horn) were present\nin the audience. He summarized the scope and layout of this project, and noted that a\nfeasibility study was completed in April 2006, following by the examination of various\nalternatives in improving access from Alameda to I-880, as well as access and circulation\nin both Alameda and Oakland. Since the feasibility study has been performed, ACTIA\nhas hired consultant Kimley-Horn to work on the evaluated alternatives; they will move\nforward with a Project Study Report (PSR) as required by Caltrans. The goal of the task\nto the consultant was to produce the PSR, which will be approved by Caltrans.\nTransportation Commission\nJuly 25, 2007\nPage 2 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-07-25", "page": 3, "text": "Art Dao, Deputy Director, ACTIA, provided an update on the development of the\nBroadway/Jackson/I-880 access improvement projects. He noted that the existing funds\nwill not be enough to deliver this project, and that state and federal financial assistance\nwould be necessary. Their goal is to use the PSR as the platform to compete for that\nfunding.\nDave Dickinson, consultant project manager, described and discussed the feasibility\nstudy. He noted that there were some issues with ground water with respect to\nconstructing the exit from the Posey Tube. He noted that the curve of a proposed ramp\ncoming out of the Tube could only accommodate design speeds of 23 mph, so they were\nlooking at different options to reduce the speeds in the Tube and enhance safety. With\nrespect to the proposed I-980 ramps, he believed they could provide some benefit.\nHowever, he noted that the merge distance between consecutive on- and off-ramps was\nmuch less than half of standard. In addition, the ramps violate FHWA policy regarding\nplacing new local ramps on the freeway-to-freeway connector such as this stretch of I-\n980. They also explored whether the Broadway off-ramp could touch down at Webster or\nHarrison, so that Alameda-bound traffic could turn smoothly into the Webster Tube. The\nfeasibility alternative examined touching down at Harrison; however, it introduced\nanother intersection at Harrison and Sixth. They were examining whether it could be\nbrought all the way down to Webster, depressing Harrison about five feet in order to get a\nreconstructed off-ramp at Harrison. They also examined whether the I-980 off-ramp\ncould be dropped directly into the Webster Tube, but it was determined not to be feasible\ndue to the profile grades and trying to get three lanes of traffic into two lanes.\nMr. Dickinson noted that they wanted to finalize the geometric analysis, and to\nunderstand the origin/destination studies. He displayed the areas where traffic counts\nwere also being performed, and believed this data would provide a credible traffic\nforecasting and operations analysis for this project.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the context-sensitive alterations near the senior\ncenter in Chinatown could be seen as a short-term issue, or as an alternative to the\nreconfiguration of the ramps for the sharp right turn out of the tube. Mr. Dickinson\nreplied that they were exploring that issue, and suggested that it may be both. He noted\nthat it seemed to have promise as a long-term viable solution, and if the pedestrian\nconflicts could be removed, that ramp may become an in effect dedicated freeway on-\nramp. He noted that it was signed and striped for that function.\nChair Knox White noted that the staff report stated that Oakland had recommended the\nelimination of Alternative B-1, and inquired whether those issues had been resolved in\norder to allow that alternative to move forward. Mr. Dickinson replied that Oakland had\npartnered with them, and that he had not heard anything to indicate that they might turn\ndown Alternative B-1, although some elements may need to be addressed. They\ncontinued to move forward in exploring B-1, and had not been told to stop.\nTransportation Commission\nJuly 25, 2007\nPage 3 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-07-25", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Dickenson noted that they eliminated the conflict of the Pulte building, and that while\nsome of the hurdles still existed, he did not consider them to be insurmountable. He noted\nthat the 23-mph curve was a challenge, and believed that it should be posted 5 mph below\nthat.\n7B.\nProject Update: for I-880/High Street Seismic Retrofit Project and 42nd\nAvenue/High Street Access Improvements. Discussion.\nStaff Khan presented the staff report. He noted that staff's concerns were related to access\nalong frontage roads, although some of those concerns had been addressed by providing\nsome direct access from the I-880 Southbound off-ramp that will connect directly to 42nd\nAvenue, providing better access to Alameda.\nStanley Gee, project manager, Caltrans, made a presentation describing the seismic\nretrofit, and displayed the ongoing project on the overhead screen. He noted that Caltrans\nhad determined that in the event of a major earthquake, the structures would be\nvulnerable to significant damage. They determined that it would be better to completely\nreplace the structures, as detailed in the proposal. The cost of the project would be\napproximately $75 million, and the new structure would be designed to meet current\nhighway standards, including lane width, shoulder width and ramp design. The new\nfreeway will be somewhat wider than the existing structure, which currently has little to\nno shoulders. He noted that the biggest challenge would be to clear the right of way\nneeded for the project, which would impact Home Depot. He added that there would be a\nsignificant impact to the parking lot area because of the widened freeway, reconstruction\nof the ramp, as well as the reconstruction of E. 8th Street. Caltrans was in the process of\nworking out that issue with Home Depot, and the cities of Oakland and Alameda. The\nsolution included eliminating a portion of E. 8th Street that would significantly reduce the\nimpact of the Home Depot parking lot. Their intention was to not replace that portion of\nE. 8th Street.\nMr. Gee noted that there would be a minor impact to the Shell gas station, and that the\nfront of the property of the East Bay MUD pumping plant will have to be taken for the\nreconstruction of Oakport Street. He described the acquisition of the property formerly\nheld by the Japanese engine company, as well as the Western Tool property. He advised\nthat the goal of the project was the seismic retrofit of the structure, not adding lanes. An\nimportant feature of the project was the reconstruction of the interchange at 42nd Avenue\nand I-880. He noted that they were scheduled to start construction in early 2009, and that\nthe actual construction period should take about four years. He displayed the actual\nstaging of the project on the overhead screen.\nTransportation Commission\nJuly 25, 2007\nPage 4 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-07-25", "page": 5, "text": "Commissioner Ratto inquired who was responsible for signage at the intersection near the\nright-hand turn at High Street that allowed access to Alameda Avenue. Mr. Gee believed\nit was the City of Oakland's responsibility. Commissioner Ratto noted that when he made\nthat right-hand turn, there was no stop sign, yield sign or any other signage, which he\nbelieved was hazardous due to the auto traffic driving through at a high speed.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the closure of E. 8th Street would have any\neffect on the freeway access. Mr. Gee replied that it provided a frontage road with fairly\nlight traffic. He added that it would be made into a cul de sac by the City Oakland.\nStaff Khan noted that E. 8th Street provided local circulation for the Oakland side; the\nconcern regarding the Alameda side was the internal circulation to access Home Depot\nand I880. The new project would provide better access to Alameda from 29th Avenue\nsouthbound I880 on-ramp to reach 42nd Avenue.\nPublic comment.\nMadeline Murphy believed there would be an impact on the Fruitvale Bridge when\npeople exit from Fruitvale to Alameda Avenue. She was concerned there would be many\nlane closures.\nMr. Gee noted there would be a tremendous amount of construction going on, with a\ngreat deal of equipment; he acknowledged there would be disruption, but that they would\nmaintain the same number of lanes on the freeway as currently exist during peak periods.\nHe noted that High Street would be maintained open, but may need to be closed for very\nshort periods of time late at night in order to do some of the overhead work. He noted that\nthey did not intend to have any long-term street closures, including High Street. He noted\nthat any work that could not be done safely at night, or that would cause noise impacts,\nwould occur during the day. He added that they would work with the City.\nClose public comment.\nStaff Khan noted that some closures and delays were inevitable, but that Alameda will\nwork closely with Caltrans and Oakland during this time.\nNo action was taken.\n7C.\nDraft Action Plan for SOV Trip Reduction at Webster/Posey Tubes and Bay\nFarm Island Bridge. Outcome: Comment from TC and Approval of Draft Work\nPlan. Discussion/Action\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report, and noted that this item grew out of the joint\nmeeting between the Transportation Commission and the City Council on May 7, 2007.\nthe Council had indicated that they were interested in having the Transportation\nTransportation Commission\nJuly 25, 2007\nPage 5 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-07-25", "page": 6, "text": "Commission focus on developing strategies to reduce the number of single-occupant\nvehicle trips at the Webster-Posey Tubes and the Bay Farm Island Bridge. Based on the\nmeeting, staff prepared an action plan. He noted that the key points were:\n1. The City's Municipal Code will require some modifications to enable the TC\nto undertake this activity, which will be discussed in Item 7D.\n2. The levels and characteristics of the traffic at Bay Farm Island Bridge,\nincluding the portion of traffic related to schools and accessing I-880.\n3. To determine what additional measures can be used to address traffic concerns\nat the two locations.\n4. Consideration that whatever is done could have impacts on other activities\nthat are underway, such as the TMP.\nThe last section of the report outlined the action plan, and described the tasks, as well as a\ngeneral timeframe. Page 3 listed the specific tasks, including the bullets from Exhibit 1.\nStaff intended to develop a coherent, cohesive strategy for focusing on the reduction of\nsingle-occupancy vehicle trips.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that the report stated that traffic counts would be taken\nwhen school was in session \"if needed,\" and inquired what circumstances would occur\nthat the counts would not be needed during school session. Staff Khan noted that the\nintent was not to be redundant, since a substantial amount of data had already been\ncollected when school was in session.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that page 4 discussed working with AUSD to determine\ntheir interest in pursuing funding for school buses. He inquired whether that would be\npaid for by the school district. Staff Bergman noted that staff had not discussed that issue\nwith the school district yet, and that additional funding opportunities were to be explored.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that there was substantial bus/transit service on Bay\nFarm Island, and suggested that marketing existing transit services should be included in\nthe strategies. He suggested looking at origins and destinations to see if whether existing\ntransit service could be used.\nPublic comment.\nThere were no speakers.\nClose public comment.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he had heard anecdotal evidence and complaints about\nthe reliability of the AC Transit school service, and that parents drove their children to\nschool because of it. He suggested that the Transportation Commission investigate that\npotential issue, and to work with AC Transit to make the bus more attractive. He noted\nthat the bus either showed up late or not at all.\nTransportation Commission\nJuly 25, 2007\nPage 6 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-07-25", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Ratto suggested that discussions with AUSD take place to develop a\nformalized carpooling program for students, as well as incentives for people to participate\nin it. Staff Bergman replied that staff had spoken with AUSD regarding staff participation\nin an EcoPass program. Commissioner Ratto noted that he would not let his first grader\nride the bus to Earhart School, but would feel more comfortable with letting a younger\nchild with a neighbor in a car pool.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that Marin County had a School Pool program that also\nincluded walk-pooling and bicycle-pooling, enabling numbers of parents to accompany\ntheir children to school and reduce single-occupancy trips.\nChair Knox White believed the Safe Routes to School maps for Otis School should be\ncompleted. He did not believe it belonged on this particular action plan. Staff Khan noted\nthat staff examined Otis and Lincoln because they were close to Bay Farm Island, and\nthat the Safe Routes to School maps were being developed.\nChair Knox White believed that the problems should be identified first, and that the data\nshould be collected in such a way that the problem spots could be clearly determined and\nidentified. He added that the overall goal was to reduce the congestion in the two areas or\ncorridors. He hoped that the language to reduce the single-occupancy trips would be\nstronger. He supported Councilmember DeHaan's suggestion to think outside the box, as\nif cost were no factor, in order to develop more innovative solutions. He believed the\nTransportation Commission could begin working on the solutions as data are collected,\nand that the pedestrian plan deadlines should not be pushed back as other work gets in the\nway. He noted that the Transportation Element had already been pushed back to May\n2008. He noted that with respect to the Safe Routes to School program, there still seemed\nto be an inability for the School District or the City to take ownership of the program. He\nwould like to see a meaningful partnership between the two entities so that the programs\nsuch as those brought up by Commissioner Schatmeier may be implemented.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that Marin County had a Transportation Authority to\nhire someone to coordinate the various programs at the schools. He noted that the task\nforces associated with each school should be coordinated, including parents, school\ndistrict personnel, the City Public Works staff, and students.\nStaff Khan agreed that ownership of the program would be the key to any kind of success\nin the school area. He believed that enforcement was also critical, requiring the\ninvolvement of the Police Department in that process. He noted that Public Works meets\nwith the Police Department on a monthly basis to address school-related issues, as well as\nother issues to maintain coordination. He believed that a similar structure with the school\ndistrict would help in this process, and invited comment from the Transportation\nCommission to improve the coordination.\nCommissioner Ratto moved to accept staff's recommendations in the Draft Work Plan,\nand to further prioritize additional strategies. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the\nmotion. Motion passed 6-0.\nTransportation Commission\nJuly 25, 2007\nPage 7 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-07-25", "page": 8, "text": "7D.\nProposed Revisions to Alameda Municipal Code Regarding Reassignment of\nTechnical Transportation Team Responsibilities, Modification of\nTransportation Commission Responsibilities and Appeal Process for\nTransportation Operational Decisions. Outcome: TC to comment and endorse\nthe proposed revisions to Alameda Municipal Code.\nStaff Khan summarized the staff report, and described the background of this item. He\nnoted that a joint meeting between City Council and the TC had been held on May 7, 2007.\nAt that time, City Council directed the TC to look into some specific projects, discussed\nduring Item 7C. It was discussed that because the TC did not have the authority to look into\nspecific project development processes or work on specific projects, staff was directed by\nCouncil to make some modification to the Municipal Code to allow the TC to work on some\nspecific projects if directed by City Council. He noted that the Transportation Technical\nTeam (TTT) responsibilities will be shifted to the Public Works Director. The Public Works\nDirector's decisions may then be appealed to the TC, and the TC decisions may be appealed\nto City Council. He noted that the City Council would be the ultimate authority in that chain.\nHe noted that the Public Works Director had the discretion to send items to the TC if he or\nshe felt that some of the issues may require policy input, or if it had substantial opposition in\nthe community. Staff planned to make a change to the Alameda Municipal Code to allow\nthe TC to look at some specific projects as directed by City Council.\nStaff Khan noted that staff intended to include in the TC's new responsibilities items related\nto Planning Department development projects, including new development and\nenvironmental documents. Another point of discussion was the method by which the\ncommunication went to the Planning Board. Instead of providing the information as part of\nthe public comment, staff was directed to provide a memo specifically stating that the\nrecommendations came from the TC.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that the main change seemed to be between who the\nappeal body was, and who the current and proposed authority was.\nChair Knox White noted that this change made the Public Works/Transportation\nCommission/City Council connection more consistent with other departments, where\nstaff makes a recommendation and the appointed body acts as the appeal body.\nCommissioner Ratto believed there was an anomaly on the chart on page 3, under\n\"Proposed Authority.\" He noted that the TC was noted listed under any items except for\n\"Angled Parking,\" and inquired why that was singled out. Staff Khan replied that angled\nparking had Council-designated zones where it could be placed. He believed that was the\nthought behind in modifying the Code.\nPublic comment.\nThere were no speakers.\nTransportation Commission\nJuly 25, 2007\nPage 8 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-07-25", "page": 9, "text": "Close public comment.\nCommissioner Ratto believed this was a wonderful report, and liked the matrix as well.\nTo make it clear that TC decisions can still be appealed to the City Council, he suggested\nthat in the Background portion of the write-up, the last line of the first paragraph should\nbe changed to read, \"The Transportation Commission (TC) will be the initial appeal\nboard\". He suggested that on page 2, the second bullet under \"Proposed AMC Revisions\"\nbe changed to read, \"If operational decisions by the Public Works Director are appealed,\nsuch initial appeals will be \" He suggested that in the matrix, \"Current Appeal Body\"\nshould be changed to \"Current Initial Appeal Body.\" Also, \"Proposed Appeal Body\"\nshould be changed to \"Proposed Initial Appeal Body.\"\nCommissioner Krueger suggested the inclusion of the following language, \"As\npreviously, the Council remains the final and ultimate appeal body.\"\nChair Knox White inquired about the disposition of the report following this meeting.\nStaff Khan replied that there were over 30 changes, and that staff wished to ensure the TC\nunderstood the goals and purpose of the changes. He advised that this document would\ngo to the City Council on August 21, 2007.\nCommissioner Ratto moved to accept the staff report with the suggested clarifications in\nlanguage, including the two excluded items from the staff report. Commissioner Schatmeier\nseconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0.\n8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nStaff Khan advised that the parking study for Webster Street and the West Alameda\ncommercial district will come to the TC in September or October. The Economic\nDevelopment Strategic Plan is tentatively scheduled for the November Transportation\nCommission meeting. Staff may bring the Local Action Plan from the Climate Protection\nTask Force to the TC either in October or November. The August meeting will include a\npresentation from the Congestion Management Agency on the 29th and 23rd Street project.\nStaff has requested that CMA attend the meeting to present that project; staff has\nconcerns related to access from Park Street to the freeway.\nStaff Bergman advised that Commissioner Knoth has officially resigned from the TC, and\nstaff has been working with the School District to find a recommended replacement. He\nhoped an appointment may be made within a month or so. He noted that the City's\nwebsite has been undergoing design changes, with the ultimate goal of being more user-\nfriendly, especially in accessing documents.\nChair Knox White noted that the TC minutes will be available on the web site in a more\ntimely manner going forward.\nTransportation Commission\nJuly 25, 2007\nPage 9 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-07-25", "page": 10, "text": "Commissioner Ratto inquired whether this meeting was meant to be televised. Staff Khan\nnoted that he was concerned about that issue, and did not know why it was not televised.\nHe noted that he would report back to the TC.\nMeeting adjourned at 9:30 PM.\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC\\2007\\082207\\0725minutes-draft.doc\nTransportation Commission\nJuly 25, 2007\nPage 10 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf"}